MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1997892804 · doi:10.5509/2010832283

Regulating Pacific Seasonal Labour in Australia

2010· article· en· W1997892804 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Therese MacDermott

Bibliographic record

VenuePacific Affairs · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEmployment and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkforceGovernment (linguistics)Settlement (finance)ExploitBusinessEconomic growthPolitical scienceEconomicsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2008 the Australian Government announced a new labour mobility scheme for Pacific workers, with the objective of meeting seasonal demand for low skilled labour in the horticulture industry and promoting economic development in Pacific Island Countries. Modelled on New Zealand’s Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme, it is a significant departure from Australia’s long-standing preference for permanent migration that is non-discriminatory with respect to the country of origin. Any temporary migration programme that draws a workforce from developing countries has the potential to exploit vulnerable foreign workers, but the long term success of Australia’s pilot program makes it imperative that seasonal workers from the Pacific are not exposed to that danger. This article examines why the responsibility for protecting Pacific workers falls largely on Australia’s regulatory framework governing workplace relations, and how those laws, policies and processes can meet that challenge. Equality laws, occupational health and safety principles, dispute settlement procedures, and trade union involvement all form part of an institutional network that can assist this highly visible scheme to meet the expectations of participants both in Australia and in the Pacific.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.158
Threshold uncertainty score0.315

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0070.005
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.325 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePacific AffairsSame topicEmployment and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207